Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West Bank settlement

This video is said to show Israeli soldiers and a “security” man aiming guns at the head of an injured boy, Maysara, who fell down, apparently after he was shot in the right leg while running away from an Israeli settlement in an occupied village near Nablus. It says it was recorded May 15th. Rawan Yaghi translates:

The Arabic at the beinning says: “Video showing IDF soldiers attacking an injured boy, Maysara, who fell down after he was shot by settlers while running away from them in the village of Qaryoun near Nablus.”

Voices in the video say “soldiers and security are surrounding him.”

What “security” in the West Bank is authorized to aim a gun at a child’s head? Who is authorized to use live ammunition on children?
 

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 30 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. just says:

    Inhuman.

    (Nice ‘offer’ of first aid by these thugs.)

  2. Pamela Olson says:

    Once in 2009, as my bus was pulling away from the Qalandia checkpoint, I happened to look out my window and see a young Palestinian man with a keffiya wrapped around his head against the cold. Then my window framed an Israeli soldier who casually raised his gun until it was pointing at the Palestinian guy’s head. The soldier pantomimed pulling the trigger and feeling the kick as he shot the young man in the head. The Palestinian guy was walking away and didn’t see the soldier pretend to kill him, but another soldier did and chuckled.

    That was my last view of the occupation on that particular visit: a joke about cold-blooded murder, in broad daylight, with the approval of his peer.

    • Citizen says:

      @ Pamela Olson
      Nothing like a bully in the school yard where there’s no safety. How long will the Palestinian people have to endure what happens when the untermenschen become the uber menshchen (as Truman put it)? So long as the US mainstream media and publishing allow it. Is there any cure except for the Palestinians to grow in USA a Soros and Adelson? I think not. I mean, 200 Years Together has still not been published in English in America, although the author is world famous.

  3. Off topic (sorry), but there’s a new indie documentary on US policy in the Middle East–

    Valentino’s Ghost: The politics behind images
    Michael Singh, Producer
    link to valentinosghost.com

    I haven’t seen it, but the trailer talks openly about the cost of supporting Israel; and even more shocking, I notice that the list of interviewees is not dominated by Jewish names.

    It’s currently showing at the Quad Cinema in Manhattan.

  4. Ecru says:

    In years to come, when “Nazi!” has lost it’s sting it’ll be replaced with “Zionist!”

    • Cliff says:

      imo

      i mean think about our own soldiers peeing on dead taliban (id say this was dishonorable and repulsive, but not ‘Nazi’esque at all) or abu gharib (torture) and guantanamo (torture) and the Haditha killings and the gang-rape of that 14 yr old iraqi girl + the murder of her family

      ‘Nazi’ is basically a label attached to evil acts but I think the respective organizations (our army, or the israeli army) that are labelled as such, are ‘bad enough’ that simply referring to them as the IDF (‘defense forces’) in contempt drives the point home without resorting to Godwin’s Law

      although everyone, on every issue, ends up doing it

      • Ecru says:

        Well put, and shorthand for evil is actually what I was getting at. However you’re missing one other point which is that at core Zionism is basically Nazism for Jews. Blut und boden, lebensraum, uber/untermensch, officially encouraged paranoia, etc. etc. all manifest in both ethno-nationalist systems.

  5. just says:

    How long before the Israelis/IDF/ and many others dispute and deny this horrible video???

    • Ecru says:

      They’ll probably do neither. In their sick and twisted minds there’s nothing actually wrong with pointing a gun at a childs head (as long as said child isn’t Jewish of course).

      No instead they’ll try and explain how the child was really an existential threat to the Ghetto-state and anyway anyone who even remarks on this image is obviously an antisemite so there.

      • Shingo says:

        In their sick and twisted minds there’s nothing actually wrong with pointing a gun at a childs head (as long as said child isn’t Jewish of course).

        All the while Gilad and co will obsess over whether the Palestinian child being targetted has any malevolent intent in his heart and whether he might, at some point, pick ip a rock and throw it.

  6. Cliff says:

    Scumbag IDF and settlers.

    • seafoid says:

      Israel now insists Mohamed ad Durra
      did not die

      WTF is this all about?

      link to haaretz.com

      • Shmuel says:

        Just to recapitulate the Israeli position:

        Al-Dura was killed by Palestinian fire but didn’t die and, in fact, never existed. Let’s talk about anti-Semtism.

      • Cliff says:

        What does the article say? (Behind a paywall).

        • tree says:

          Cliff, you can access up to 10 Haaretz articles per month with a simple registration, no payment necessary. If you don’t want to register I can understand that, but as long as you don’t try to access more than 10 articles a month, there is no “pay wall”.

          Essentially the story comes down to the fact that the final few seconds of the film show Al-Durra’s hand move, which the Israeli’s have run with to claim that he wasn’t killed, wasn’t shot, and didn’t die, despite the fact that a dead little boy that looks exactly like al-Durra was photographed in the morgue with fatal gunshot wounds.

          Shmuel’s “cliff-notes” (pun-intended) were spot on.

        • gingershot says:

          For the down and out in Paris, London, and Tel Aviv, you can read the terrific Haaretz by doing the following;

          1- go to the Haaretz site and ‘select’ and ‘copy’ the main title of the article you want to read
          2- go to the ‘Yahoo search page’ at this link link to everything.yahoo.com
          3- paste in your copied article title into the search box. Hit ENTER (or the ‘search’ tab)
          4- you will see a list of articles displayed – just find the Haaretz article title you’re trying to get (almost always the one at the very top), and look for the words ‘Cached’ following the end of the article. This is a ‘hyperlink’. Click on the ‘Cached’ hyperlink
          5- presto – you’re reading a ‘photo’ of the article you wanted, a ‘cached copy’

          (6- NOTE: the only issue is that the article will have a few highlighted words displayed in your article – the words which you used to do your ‘search’. It’s a minor thing and it’s not nearly as bad as reading a ‘kidnappers ransom note’ – haha)

          The whole process takes me about 10 seconds, but then I do it a lot

        • Talkback says:

          This actually worked. Thank you!

      • gingershot says:

        Now there’s another great article at Haaretz arguing that the report is not credible, a disaster, and ‘surreal’ as to it’s Israeli mendacity

        “Report on IDF shooting of Palestinian boy during intifada may cause Israel more damage than good’
        link to haaretz.com

        • seafoid says:

          link to haaretz.com

          “The result of the committee’s work was a document for the extremely meticulous. It is doubtful whether even a hundred people in Israel or worldwide are sufficiently familiar with all the intricate details of the incident to be able to follow the convoluted arguments by the report’s authors. Furthermore, the document contains no new evidence that might significantly impact the accepted version. Even the new interpretation given to some of the old findings seems groundless. For example, Dr. Ricardo Nachman, deputy director of Israel’s National Forensic Institute, determined, based on viewing poor quality video footage, that Mohammed al-Dura wasn’t shot and killed in that incident.

          The expert opinion attached to the report reads like an article by a movie critic and not by a pathologist. “The final scenes, in which the boy is seen raising his head and arms, bringing his hand to his face and looking into the distance are not compatible with death throes, but seem like voluntary movements,” wrote Nachman. “One doesn’t need to be an expert to see that.”

          It seems as though the report was written for use within Israel alone. The evidence and arguments that were presented might convince the already convinced, but no more than that. The committee could not present any “smoking gun” evidence showing the 25 year old al-Dura sunbathing on a Gaza beach. Not even close. Any thought of getting such a report to change the globally accepted narrative after 13 years is akin to trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

          The report also appears to be a campaign of revenge launched by the State of Israel against a single French journalist, Charles Engerlin, who first reported Mohammed al-Dura’s death. Committee members tried to saddle Enderlin, an Israeli Jew who served in the IDF spokesman’s unit and whose two sons served in the country’s military, with all of Israel’s problems and those of the Jewish people.
          The committee went even further and hinted at Enderlin’s responsibility for the massacre of Jewish schoolchildren in Toulouse. “His report inspired many terrorists and contributed to the demonization of Israel and to the rise of anti-Semitism in Muslim and Western countries”, wrote committee members. “In some cases, the implications were deadly”.”

          I.e. as expected

          The campaign of revenge is ultra bot diggity.

  7. RE: What “security” in the West Bank is authorized to aim a gun at a child’s head? Who is authorized to use live ammunition on children? ~ Annie Robbins

    ANSWER: The settlements have their own security goons, partially funded by tax-free donations the United States (of Sadism)!

    SEE: “N.Y. Fabric Store Is Home to Tax-Deductible Fund for ‘Urgent Security Needs’ of Jewish Settlers”, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, December 10, 2008
    LINK – link to mondoweiss.net

    • Citizen says:

      As I understand, the IRS very rarely goes after any US Jewish NGOs or any Jewish American organization funding Israeli settlements in any way even though that’s against US law. The IRS looks very close at any NGO or Aran-American organizations, and, as we all know with certainty, the IRS has been harassing small Tea Party type groups for years, causing them to give up their enterprise or delaying certification with tons of invasive questions until after Obama was reelected. A major problem with going after the “Pro-Israel” type organizations is that its harder to trace, and in the case of trying to assure US funds don’t go to settlers–all the money is totally fungible–no way to trace what Israel or any Jewish Israeli agency or organization does with US tax money. This also applies to trying to enforce US laws against Israel using US military aid for specific banned military/security purposes.

  8. gingershot says:

    Good thing Israel has built such an extensive prison system for the Palestinians, because once there is One State those cellblocks are going to fill up fast with Jewish Settlers who can’t get it thru their thick heads that all of a sudden they’re going to have to do time for any crime they commit against Palestinians

  9. Daniel Rich says:

    Israeli panel: Palestinian boy ‘killed’ by IDF at start of intifada did not actually die. Warning: graphic images!!

    Thirteen years after an exchange of fire in Gaza appeared to have resulted in the death of a Palestinian boy at the start of the second intifada, an Israeli investigative panel has found “there are many indications” that Mohammed al-Dura and his father, Jamal, “were never hit by gunfire” – neither Israeli nor Palestinian – after all.

    The national panel of inquiry further claims that contrary to the famed report carried by the France 2 television network on the day of the incident, September 30, 2000, 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura appears to be alive at the end of the complete footage captured of the event.

    The investigative panel was commissioned by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon in September 2012, and was headed by Yossi Kuperwasser, former director general of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs. It included representatives of the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit and the Israel Police, as well as outside experts.

    The probe focused primarily on the France 2 report about al-Dura’s death and the events that followed. The report, which was presented by journalist Charles Enderlin, alleged that the boy was killed by bullets fired by Israel Defense Forces troops.

    The committee found that the evidence in the television station’s possession did not support the claim that al-Dura died as a result of IDF gunfire. It added that the report falsely created the impression that the channel had solid proof that Israeli soldiers were responsible for the boy’s death.

    “Contrary to the claim that the boy was dead, the committee’s review of the raw footage indicates that at the end of the video – the part that was not broadcast – the boy appears to be alive,” the inquiry stated. “The probe has found that there is no evidence to support the claims that the father, Jamal, or the boy Mohammed, were shot. Furthermore, the video does not show Jamal being seriously wounded.”

    “On the other hand, many signs indicate that the two were never hit by the bullets,” the panel added in its conclusion.

    The inquiry casts doubt on the possibility that the bullet holes left on a wall under which the boy and his father sought shelter were caused by gunfire that came from a nearby IDF post, as was suggested in the France 2 report.

    The committee stressed that “many question marks surround almost every aspect of the report,” further hinting that a boy named Mohammed al-Dura may have never existed.

    The committee, which submitted its report for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s review on Sunday, charges France 2 and the reporter, Enderlin, with “harming Israel’s international standing and igniting the flames of terror and hatred.”

    “Since it aired, the France 2 report about Israel’s actions has served as inspiration and justification for terror, anti-Semitism and the Israel’s de-legitimization,” the panel said.

    An entire chapter within the inquiry report criticizes the media and offers conclusions that should be employed by journalists, even though no reporters were part of the committee. The panel asserted that the incident and its coverage highlight the need for “media outlets to abide by the strictest professional and ethical standards while reporting on asymmetrical conflicts.”

    The photos of the Duras, father and son, taking cover behind a barrel during an exchange of gunfire between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants, near the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip, remains one of the most enduring images of the second intifada.

    Israel initially apologized for the boy’s death but issued a retraction when subsequent investigations indicated the boy was most likely killed by Palestinian fire.

    In a February 2005 hearing in Paris, French Web site owner Phillipe Karsenty claimed France 2 had staged the incident, claiming the footage showed the boy still moving his arm, even though the cameraman had said he was dead. He provided a report from a French ballistics expert indicating the shots fired past the al-Duras came from the Palestinian position, and he pointed out that several scenes before the al-Dura incident appeared staged.

    The judge agreed in that hearing that some scenes did not seem genuine.

    However, Enderlin said that the images were no different from the clashes he had witnessed repeatedly. The prosecution stated that a dead Palestinian boy had been buried after the Netzarim junction incident, and that Jamal al-Dura consented to DNA tests that could prove the boy was his son.

    LINK.

    • seafoid says:

      What is the point? Why is this case SO important to Israel? Why was it taken.up by senior bots in France and the US?
      It looks like a classic example of something that can only be understood in Hebrew with the benefit of years of indoctrination.

      • a blah chick says:

        I guess is that this is part of a campaign to discredit any pictures that will come out showing Jews behaving badly. Technology has finally caught up with Israel’s repressive side. A lot of people have cell phones with cameras and they can’t really hide any more. They can only claim that you’re “not getting the full story” or “they edited that tape! Look the zombie moved!” I really wish we had cell phones when Kafr Qasem went down.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “Israeli panel: Palestinian boy ‘killed’ by IDF at start of intifada did not actually die. ”

      Neo-nazi panel: “The ‘holocaust’ did not actually happen; consisted solely of 6 Jews who caught the flu from being outside without a sweater.”

  10. amigo says:

    “Contrary to the claim that the boy was dead, the committee’s review of the raw footage indicates that at the end of the video – the part that was not broadcast – the boy appears to be alive,” the inquiry stated. “The probe has found that there is no evidence to support the claims that the father, Jamal, or the boy Mohammed, were shot. Furthermore, the video does not show Jamal being seriously wounded.”

    Well, I suggest we should have this committee sitting on the Mavi Maramara review of the unedited Tape.

  11. Qualtrough says:

    Just imagine what it must be like to be Palestinian–first to be told you don’t even exist, and now that your dead children are not even dead!